I have yet to recieve a satisfactory rebuttle to this argument. Hopefully, this time around , my opponent will not use critical fallacies one after another in place of his argument. If you do not know what a "fallacy" is, please do not accept this debate.

There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate.

I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion being deduced from the combination of all three constructs. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically.

My resolution is "Atheism is a lie."

Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution.

Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidenceDisbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence.

Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence.Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence.

Construct 1Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not.Premise2: to claim to know is to have valid evidenceConclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar.

Construct 2Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists.Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions)Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists.

Construct 3Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists.Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions)Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists.

Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.Report this ArgumentReport this Argument

all believers are disbeliever by denial in the lights of all other possibilities to the contrary, like i am wearing a green blue red hat.. if you believe i am wearing a yellow hat you are a disbeliever on green blue and red..

know=non belief=true=something=these words on the screen=sense=life

if your position is that god can not be known then your position is that god can not be true.. is it true if you dont know it? how do you know

know=physical experience

god is information, information is the opposite of matter, matter is true

only the time of now is true

disbelief is by belief, all other religions are to the contrary of your particular religion, you are an atheist to all these possibilities

atheism is theism.. theism is belief.. belief=be lie

agnostic=let the content of the ufo in the night sky remain an unsolved mystery=i accept i dont know=maybe=true

i appreciate Con for providing an attempt to use logic. I'd ask Con if he knows anything about programming, as it seems he does not.

Logic is not an A=B proposition. Nor is an A=B=C a logical construct, nor is it even an equation that contains an ounce of truth at all. Saying A=B=C=D because a=b=c=d, does not provide any links betwen A or a.

To say A=a is an assumption that has yet to be defined.

What assumption is the arguer using? That a is a lower case A.

The only reason such is such, is through human convention. Words and letters are agreed upon conventions. And i simply do not agree with Con's unconventional definitions.

Does Con not believe his parents love him? Does con not believe he is real? Does Con not believe that tomorrow will come?Anything uncertain requires a degree of belief.

So IF u say that you disbelief anything uncertain = then u cannot know anything uncertain.

That is how logic works. Con needs to go back to the drawing board on his logic. Logic is an "if A then B proposition."

@scarlet. Premises are conclusions built from other deductions or inductions of other premises. Unless the premises is axiomatic. Which is not always the case. Thats what we call a "line of reasoning."

You are right. It depends. On the YOUR defintion of God.

I define God in the most basic and comprehebsible terms. Its not my fault you are unable to comprehend. No? God is defined as the creator of all things. You can agree with this definition or not. Either way, you seem to be accepting all my premises as true, yet asserting my conclusion is false. See?

P1 Is a conclusion and not a premise. Its unsupported. Its heavily dependent on a missing definition of a god. Whether it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not, depends on this definition. The reality is that it is impossible to get a consistent and meaningful definition of a god, to answer the question in the first place (see the argument from non-cognitivism). The theist cannot get off the first base (or in this case Premise 1), as any definition offered is internally incoherent, non-specific, contradictory or so far from human experience, the conversation quickly spirals down into the theist invoking "divine mystery". It is a 'bug' and not a 'feature' of theism and leaves it critically poorly defined.
P2 This can only ever be an inductive argument, meaning the best you can ever hope for in your conclusion is ..."is probably a liar"
C - Is therefore unsubstantiated.

Construct 2

P1 Is false. Some believers claim to know that god exists, particularly those who cite personal experience.
C - Is therefore false and also equivocates.

Construct 3

Is confused. My general comments are that whilst some atheists do claim that there is no god, some atheists do not. The latter type may reject the claims of theists, and state "there is no reason to believe in a god", but they also stop short of saying "there is no god".
C - clearly equivocates on the word "know", and fatally so for the argument. But is false given Construct 1 and 2.

Reasons for voting decision: Even though I didn't fully agreed with Pro, their argument was miles ahead of Con's. They gave an argument and gave three constructs while Con just made an unorganized argument saying 'x = y so I'm correct.' Pro had better grammar as Con seemed to forget about capitalization. Pro wins.

Reasons for voting decision: Neither side used any sources, so tie. Nor did I notice any misconduct, so tie there as well.
S&G: In all rounds CON failed to capitalise the starts of sentences, which is a basic rule. While Pro did this sometimes, such as in his opening paragraph in R2, it was infrequent rather than every sentence.
Most Convincing argument: Although PRO failed to explain why his premises were right and took it as given that they were true, they do form a logical argument the premise are assumed correct. On the other hand CON failed to explain why his premises were true and the premises he put forth such as "a=1=1=stone=stone" are are confusing and don't make any logical sense to me even if I assume they are true.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.